Yesterday, the FDA met and approved the use of ella, a new emergency contraceptive pill that can provide a greater window of use than Plan B, which must be used within 72 hours. Effective for up to 120 hours after intercourse, ella can offer a wider time frame for preventing pregnancy after contraceptive failure, sexual assault, or unprotected sex.

Sadly, the extended period of possible use seems to reflect exponentially on how outraged the anti-choice crew is over advances in reproductive freedom.

Concerns have been raised over other drugs considered for “emergency contraception,” such as the “Plan B” regimen, because they might act not only to prevent ovulation but also to prevent implantation of the developing embryo in his or her mother’s womb. However, such drugs were thought to have no post-implantation effects. Ulipristal is a close analogue to the abortion drug RU-486, with the same biological effect – that is, it can disrupt an established pregnancy weeks after conception has taken place.

This drug is contraindicated for women who are or may be pregnant. Yet its proposed use here is targeted precisely at women who may already have conceived, as it would be administered within five days after “unprotected” sex or contraceptive failure. No existing pregnancy test can exclude the possibility that a new life has been conceived in this time frame. Indeed, advocates praise this drug as an advance precisely because it seems to retain its full efficacy five days after intercourse – that is, after the opportunity to prevent fertilization has passed.

It seems that Cardinal DiNardo’s solution would be for the woman to wait until after she sees if she is pregnant before she takes the drug, since no test can exclude that early that she in fact is not. Also, the Cardinal seems to have forgotten developmental biology — an embryo is at least 21 days post-fertilization. Before that, you have a blastocyst or a zygote.

During the trial, testimony, based on scientific studies, was given showing that ella in fact had “little effect on established pregnancies.” Yet, according to the New York Times, scientific study isn’t good enough for the Concerned Women for America, either.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, called ella an unsafe abortion pill that men might slip to unsuspecting women.

“With ella, women will be enticed to buy a poorly tested abortion pill in the guise of a morning-after pill,” she said.

But Wendy Wright didn’t just stop there. Even better, she claims that the panel is trying to “fool women” by not allowing them to have a pregnancy test before they get the drug. From Lifenews:

“The drug sponsor couldn’t provide information on whether Ella can cause birth defects, or what happens to women who are pregnant who take it. And yet the committee strongly recommended not giving a woman a pregnancy test,” she told LifeNews.com after the hearing.

“In Europe, Ella is contra-indicated (not to be used) in pregnancies. But the FDA committee voted to not to test women to detect if they’re pregnant. They are telling doctors to be willfully blind when giving the drug,” Wright continued.

“The committee voted to deceive women,” Wright complained.

Um, Ms. Wright? Cardinal DiNardo says that “No existing pregnancy test can exclude the possibility that a new life has been conceived in this time frame.”

I think you anti-choice spokespeople need to go over your talking points better before you start hitting the media circuits.

Surely if its important to a woman to know if there’s an established pregnancy, she is capable of ASKING the doctor to do a test, or for that matter doing it herself.

ahunt

Gee…deceiving women…again.

Now we get to add to the list…with Oklahoma attempting to give doctors the right to lie to their pregnant patients.

crowepps

About 1,600 North Dakota teenagers had abortions in the state during a 10-year period ending in 2008.

The state Health Department data surprised some lawmakers during the interim Health and Human Services Committee meeting this week.

160 a YEAR? I’m surprised it’s so LOW!

colleen

It seems that Cardinal DiNardo’s solution would be for the woman to wait until after she sees if she is pregnant before she takes the drug, since no test can exclude that early that she in fact is not. Also, the Cardinal seems to have forgotten developmental biology — an embryo is at least 21 days post-fertilization. Before that, you have a blastocyst or a zygote.

If the Cardinal would spend a bit less time pretending to authority over the uterine lining of every fertile woman in the country and more time protecting actual children from pedophiles under his authority, actual children would have been protected. What a shame that he has not learned this lesson.

jivinj

Robin,

A blastocyst is a term used to describe an embryo in a certain stage of development. The NIH defines blastocyst as “a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization.”

Maybe you didn’t know that but you should be more careful about correcting others when you apparently don’t have the subject matter firmly in hand.

squirrely-girl

So am I supposed to feel more or less protective of that preimplantation embryo?

ahunt

So is a released ova…”prefertilized?”

colleen

is that Cardinal DiNardo is predeceased

squirrely-girl

I thought we were using un- to describe all things that are actually “nots” (e.g., unborn, undead, unfertilized). Did we change the rules again?

At any rate, what do we call sperm that haven’t made contact with an egg? Keeping in mind that pre-cum is already taken.

ahunt

Well done, Ladies…

…but yes, pre and un appear to be interchangable in pro-life speak.

crowepps

As is any woman who’s not currently pregnant

crowepps

You don’t seem to have the subject matter firmly in hand either, certainly not well enough to be correcting others.

Each stage of development has its own unique name, a way for science to be clear just what exactly is being talked about. While a blastocyst contains what eventually may become an embryo, it also contains what eventually will become the placenta, amniotic sack, amniotic fluid and cord.

The stages of development are:

Sperm & Ova

Zygote (conception)

Morula (3 days after conception)

Blastocyst (5 days after conception – precursors for placenta, the rest of the support system and the embryo)

Embryo (10-14 days after conception, after implantation, distinguishable from placenta)

Fetus (10 weeks)

Keeping in mind that this is the point in the process where is most likely the conceptus will fail, there is a fascinating slide show of development available that makes it clear just how complicated the early process is here:

Left is Right, North is South, Up is Down, Blue is Red, and/or possibly Yellow…

…It just keeps coming.

sarah-w

All textbooks on gynecology state quite explicitly that human life starts at fertilization. From then on the creature in the womb is regarded in obstetrics and gyncecology as the “second patient”. That ought to be the guiding principle when it comes to deciding whether any form of contraception is ethically acceptable. If it takes effect after fertilization then it kills that new life. Human life is a profound value and the taking of human life is always an inexpressibly serious matter. You do not address that issue. Instead you charicature those who do. That shows a cynical disregard for the women you seek to mislead by assuring them they are not taking a life when they use this latest contraceptive to appear on the scene. You also show a cavalier disregard for women’s health by advocating the use of something, the safety of which is far from established.

squirrely-girl

That ought to be the guiding principle when it comes to deciding whether any form of contraception is ethically acceptable.

I’m pretty sure that is the guiding principle for individuals. See, not everybody needs or wants some other person or persons making moral and ethical decisions for them. Some of us are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves. If you don’t like the idea of taking ella… don’t. But don’t expect everybody to live their lives according to your principles.

All textbooks on gynecology state quite explicitly that human life starts at fertilization. From then on the creature in the womb is regarded in obstetrics and gyncecology as the “second patient”.

So why do most of these textbooks not define pregnancy until after implantation?